It is alll mindless parranoia. In fact i heard someone the other day claim that terrorists attacked the US and killed thousands of people in New York... What a loon!
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
Quote: Captain Sweden said: What I don't get is how Americans don't want free healthcare 'cause it cost too much, but they don't seem to mind the cost of B-52's, ICMB's, atom and hydrogen bombs, SDI/"Star Wars" which cost shitloads of money and will hopefully never be used anyway.
Except, perhaps, in the ongoing war on terror.
Explain to me how you use ABC-weapons against terrorists. I always thought the best, and more or less the only, way to combat them was with police work, intelligence and some times with special forces (Green Berets, Delta Force, Special Air Service etc).
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
Quote: Captain Sweden said: What I don't get is how Americans don't want free healthcare 'cause it cost too much, but they don't seem to mind the cost of B-52's, ICMB's, atom and hydrogen bombs, SDI/"Star Wars" which cost shitloads of money and will hopefully never be used anyway. The Cold War is over.
I agree with all of that. What I find even more strange, however, is how almost all of Europe benefits from said projects via NATO alliances dating back to the Fifties. England made the conscious decision to spend down as the number one hegemon, and Europe followed suit. The fact that the US has stationed large amounts of troops and technology in places like Italy and Germany have allowed other countries to worry less about their sovereignty and more about social issues.
Interesting. Maybe USA had an interest in keeping Western Europe in need. Anyway, having Western Europe invaded by the Soviet Union is a dreadful thought.
However, European countries have to my knowledge never asked Reagan to invest in B1-bombers (a project stopped by Carter), a battle ship (!) and the unrealistic SDI/'Star Wars'. Nor do have Europe asked Clinton and Bush Jr to continue to invest in modest versions of SDI.
But I'm talking about yesterday's news. It's a good time to get rid of the 27 000 warheads prepared to snuff the world.
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
The USA does have national health. It's called Medicare. For some reason we think it should only be available to people from th ere mid-60s to death and those with a disability.
I fall into the latter category. I have in the past had very beefy health coverage provided by my employer. Medicare beats all of them hands down. I picked a primary doctor from the telephone book. I can go to a specialist anytime I want. My specialist is a tenured professor of medicine at UCSF, rated by US News as one of the top 5 med centers in the country. I pay a premium of $86.00 per month. My annual medical expenses are in excess of $50,000 per year. At some point I'll have a surgery that costs $300M to $500M. With Part D starting in Jan., my premium will go up $28.00, but I spend a $1000.00 per month on prescription drugs, so what are ya gonna do?
I tell you, this national health program really sucks.
Quote: wannabuyamonkey said: It is alll mindless parranoia. In fact i heard someone the other day claim that terrorists attacked the US and killed thousands of people in New York... What a loon!
Do you think the country is gonna be any less scared once Bin Laden is caught? Once the whole Middle East is westernized? Maybe for a while, but then you're gonna find something else to be afraid of.
One thing that might help is to shorten the duration of exclusivity periods for different prescription drugs. As it stands now, pharmaceutical firms who win exclusivity have sole access to a particular drug for a period of ten to fifteen years from the beginning of that particular drug's research. During that time, no one can make a generic version of the drug, and pharmaceutical firms can charge whatever they can get away with for that particular drug. Shortening the exclusivity period would give you generic drugs sooner, and the only way pharmaceutical companies would be able to keep making the same profits would be to eventually start lowering prices to compensate through volume.
Quote: wannabuyamonkey said: It is alll mindless parranoia. In fact i heard someone the other day claim that terrorists attacked the US and killed thousands of people in New York... What a loon!
Do you think the country is gonna be any less scared once Bin Laden is caught? Once the whole Middle East is westernized? Maybe for a while, but then you're gonna find something else to be afraid of.
Not if we can kill it first.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
Quote: Captain Sammitch said: One thing that might help is to shorten the duration of exclusivity periods for different prescription drugs. As it stands now, pharmaceutical firms who win exclusivity have sole access to a particular drug for a period of ten to fifteen years from the beginning of that particular drug's research. During that time, no one can make a generic version of the drug, and pharmaceutical firms can charge whatever they can get away with for that particular drug. Shortening the exclusivity period would give you generic drugs sooner, and the only way pharmaceutical companies would be able to keep making the same profits would be to eventually start lowering prices to compensate through volume.
Another Socialized Medicine "Success" Story: Britain's National Health Service withholds expensive cancer-treating drugs, depending on where the patient lives.
Quote: the G-man said: Another Socialized Medicine "Success" Story: Britain's National Health Service withholds expensive cancer-treating drugs, depending on where the patient lives.
G-man, that story happens everyday in the USA. The difference is it's private insuarance companies rather than a single payer gov. system. I've fought this battle personally for new standard of care medications denied to me by my insurance companies. One of them has made it possible for me to return to work. Thanks to Medicare Plan D I no longer have to fight for my monthly refill. That is a government health care program.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."John Stuart MillAmerica is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.Oscar WildeHe who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
Quote: the G-man said: Another Socialized Medicine "Success" Story: Britain's National Health Service withholds expensive cancer-treating drugs, depending on where the patient lives.
G-man, that story happens everyday in the USA. The difference is it's private insuarance companies rather than a single payer gov. system. I've fought this battle personally for new standard of care medications denied to me by my insurance companies. One of them has made it possible for me to return to work. Thanks to Medicare Plan D I no longer have to fight for my monthly refill. That is a government health care program.
It's true. Neither socialism nor capitalism can provide decent health care.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
Quote: the G-man said: Another Socialized Medicine "Success" Story: Britain's National Health Service withholds expensive cancer-treating drugs, depending on where the patient lives.
G-man, that story happens everyday in the USA. The difference is it's private insuarance companies rather than a single payer gov. system. I've fought this battle personally for new standard of care medications denied to me by my insurance companies. One of them has made it possible for me to return to work. Thanks to Medicare Plan D I no longer have to fight for my monthly refill. That is a government health care program.
It's true. Neither socialism nor capitalism can provide decent health care.
Medicare is awesome, Dude. It's the best plan I've ever had by far!
$140 a month in premium covers everything! There's no better way to go than fee-for-service, but you can opt for an HMO/PPO if that's your cup of tea. The cost of administration is 9 times less than private insurers (3% v. 28%).
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."John Stuart MillAmerica is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.Oscar WildeHe who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
Another Socialized Medicine "Success" Story: because it has state-financed dental service, Britian has seen desperate people starting to perform "do it yourself" dentistry.
Another "great moment in socialized medicine," from the London Times:
Edward Atkinson, a 75-year-old anti-abortion activist, was jailed recently for 28 days for sending photographs of aborted foetuses to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King's Lynn, Norfolk. That draconian sentence was not deemed punishment enough: the hospital has banned Mr Atkinson from receiving the hip replacement operation he was expecting.
Why do the same people who don't trust the government to spy on terrorists, lest dissenters get caught up in the web, so often also urge giving government control over our health care?
More great moments in socialized medicine, this time from Canada:
Julie Kahn couldn't even put her disappointment into words yesterday.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled the provincial government doesn't have to pay for an expensive therapy treatment for children with autism older than five, the kind of teaching that reaches children like her 11-year-old son, Jacob.
"These children are extremely deficient in so many areas" and this form of teaching has been effective, she said.
The Kahn family is one of 35 families that was suing the Ontario government to pay for the intense one-on-one specialized autism therapy known either as intensive behavioural intervention (IBI) or applied behavioural analysis (ABA).
The government began funding the therapy for kids with autism aged two to five in 2000. Children are cut off from government money when they turn six.
People tend to think that socialized medicine will mean treatment for all when, in reality, it often leads to rationing.
Furthermore, when you have a situation like this one, where the government subsidizes the treatment up to a certain point, that subsidy helps keep the cost higher for everyone, making it more difficult for the unsubsidized people to obtain it.
Socialized medicine: just a disaster all the way around.
A new study by the Fraser Institute says the number of doctors per capita will drop over the next decade unless Canada relies on foreign-trained physicians.
The study released in Calgary says government restrictions on education and training have caused the problem, which will only get worse between now and 2015.
I've often heard it said: The advantage of the socialized Canadian health care system, is its proximity to the United States.
And to the non-socialized, private system just across the border in the U.S.
For example, if you're a Canadian and you have a brain tumor. With limited surgical facilities available, your care is free in Canada, but your surgery is scheduled two years from now. So you wait, for a very anxious two years, and hope the cancer doesn't spread and become malignant.
Or, if you're Canadian and you have the money, you can come across the border and pay out-of-pocket for an American surgeon to remove it in a matter of days or weeks.
That's the advantage of the Canadian system, the best of both worlds. In less dire circumstances, you have free medical care. But when it's life-threatening, you can always go to the U.S., and pay for what you need.
Apparently, socialized medicine has so impoverished parts of the British medical community that one hospital is considering treating pets in order to make ends meet:
Ipswich Hospital is proposing to use its state-of-the-art radiotherapy equipment, which lies dormant at weekends, to treat family pets with cancer in special Saturday morning clinics. . . .
The measure was criticised [last night] as a symptom of "financial mismanagement" and potentially dangerous to patients.
Reading journalist Ezra Klein's blog the other day, I noticed he had this to say about government-run health care:
What's fun about the universal health care argument is how many facets it has. A good plan would be more efficient, more just, more economical, and more effective.
I was reminded of that when reading this article about Canada's health care system. To keep its health care budgets under control, Canada has to ration care and as a result has long-wait times for surgery and cancelled surgeries.
As a result, private clinics are now popping up like wild flowers in Canada. As the article notes:
In British Columbia, the health care budget is ballooning and the provincial government is under fire for bed shortages and long waits in emergency rooms. In recent months, the B.C. New Democratic Party has attacked the provincial Liberal government for not cracking down on doctors it says have allowed patients to pay for access to private clinics.
In some cases, patients have been able to use their access to the private clinics to get to the front of the line for diagnostic tests, saving months or even years of waiting.
That wait, sometimes, is fatal. So, what's the government's response? Why, close down private clinics, of course:
A showdown over the future of medicare is expected to unfold in Vancouver today as the B.C. government threatens to shut down a private clinic that may start charging patients for services that should be free under the health care system. ''We need to ensure universal access to health care is maintained in this province,'' B.C. Health Minister George Abbott said Thursday.
In what Abbott called ''an extraordinary move,'' the B.C. government pushed through a cabinet order Thursday that will empower government auditors to enter the premises of the Urgent Care Centre that has promised to open its doors today in Vancouver.
Yep, government going to make sure everyone has universal access, even if that means universal access to a waiting list. Sounds pretty efficient, just, economical, and effective to me.
...a study in the journal Circulation found that there was significant difference in the five-year post-heart attack survival rate between the U.S. and Canada.
The U.S. had a better survival rate that the researchers found was attributable to the fact that the U.S. did more bypass surgeries and angioplasties than Canada. The data collected on both sides of the border was similar. Surely, over five years, many cultural factors not related to the health care system, such as diet and tobacco use, could account for the difference. Yet these factors probably cancel each other out; smoking rates are slightly higher in Canada, but obesity is higher in the U.S. Thus, it seems that our health care system is better at treating heart attack patients.
A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compared a host of studies that looked at the rate of adverse events in hospitals (a disability, prolonged hospital stay or death caused by hospital error) in different countries. The U.S. had much lower rates of adverse events than hospitals in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.K. The data wasn't completely comparable across studies; for example, some studies left out death as part of their definition of adverse events. But even if the rates of death in those had been twice what it was in the Canadian study, the U.S. would still come out well ahead.
Finally, a study in the British Journal of Surgery compared patients in the U.S. and U.K. who had major surgery (except cardiac surgery.) The study controlled for the patients' risk of death prior to surgery. Despite this, the rate of mortality post-surgery was four times higher in the U.K. than in the U.S.
Originally Posted By: the ruling party in George Orwell's "1984"
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength
Mark Finklestein writes that, "with the socialized medicine plan she is about to introduce, Hillary Clinton adds another spooky non sequitur to the list: compulsory coverage is choice":
Clinton cagily calls her proposal "American Health Choices Plan." But according to this AP article, it requires everyone to carry health insurance: The centerpiece of Clinton's plan is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance — just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance.
but [auto insurance] is the result of an affirmative decision people make to drive. What's the equivalent here? Breathing?
Hillary's plan denies Americans the most fundamental choice of all: that of choosing no coverage. For millions of young, healthy people, or affluent ones who prefer not to deal with the insurance bureaucracy, that can be a very rational decision. In any case, it's their choice to make.
Her spokesman claims that "if you like the plan you have, you keep it." That is simply untrue if your plan is to pay as you go.
in Hillary's Orwellian world, forcing people to participate in a government program is choice.
This is probably one of my favourite bits of Sicko.
Now people may try to say Moore is a fabricator and a liar,exaggerator, etc. But as he says, magnetic tape doesn't lie. Why am I not surprised Nixon is involved.
And it's funny, one word was more than enough to sell Nixon on HMO's. "Private". I dunoo.. is this a Pavlovian response among the right or something? Everything "private" is good. Everything to do with the Government is baaaaad. Is it because it's even less likely people those inclined to that kind of language will ever be 'Dictator of America' than the chances of them one day being the asshole in charge of a HMO and it being they raking in ill gotten gains (to quote A scene in The Simpsons )?
Yes yes, some on the right might ridicule, "ah.. there go those liberals, "Republicans are responsible for all bad. Republicans are EEEVVVIIILL!" as they are apt to do. How do you argue with audio of Nixon himself being happy when told profits would increase for the CEO's, and then the killer: "The less care you give them, the more money they make".
"NOT BAD"???!!!!
Jeez. Is there anything Nixon touched that didn't turn to shit?
Watergate is just an interesting bit of history. yeah, it was a Constitutional crisis and all that. But it really doesn't affect me too much. Not now. What this man facilitated however, does.
Hillary Clinton is patting herself on the back for proposing a health-care plan that is much more politically astute than her 1993 Rube Goldberg effort. She told an audience in New York this week: "I think I have successfully thought through all of the objections and pre-empted them."
She may want to think again. Last January, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed an eerily similar plan using the same rhetoric and even the same slogan adopted by Mrs. Clinton to describe hers: "Shared Responsibility."
That's no coincidence. Both ArnoldCare and HillaryCare 2.0 are the product of the same advisers. But despite all of its clever political compromises, ArnoldCare is bogged down in trench warfare in California's liberal Democratic Legislature. If anything passes, it will likely be only a shell of a bill without any financing component. Legislators will hope voters approve a general tax increase to pay for it in November 2008.
The Journal goes on to note that "Given the similarities, here are some political lessons that ArnoldCare might teach us about how Mrs. Clinton's plan might be received":
• The claim that no new bureaucracies are created will be challenged. Like Gov. Schwarzenegger, Mrs. Clinton envisions requiring everyone to prove they have health insurance. But she's vague on the details: "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed." You can bet she will have some ideas.
Even so, making certain people have insurance is easier said than done. California has had a law mandating that drivers have car insurance since 1970 and has required physical proof of insurance to register a car for a decade. Even so, the Insurance Research Council says 25% of the state's drivers remain uninsured.
• Illegal aliens and their access to health insurance will be controversial. Mrs. Clinton promises health care for all, but is punting on the issue of whether the illegal aliens, who often use emergency room services, will be covered. Ms. Rubiner admits it's a "huge issue," but says "that's one we're going to have to think through a little bit."
Criticism of the governor's plans to cover illegal aliens forced him to drop the idea, but this week he fumed at those who raise such "Mickey Mouse"-type concerns. Mrs. Clinton's plan could be caught between populist forces opposing health care for illegal aliens and liberals who will insist on it.
• Hoping for bipartisan support isn't the same thing as getting it. Gov. Schwarzenegger sincerely believed he could convince Republicans to support his plan. In the end, he couldn't find anyone from either party to push his plan in the Legislature. It was too tax-heavy for Republicans (his effort to call proposed tax hikes "loans" flopped) and not nearly interventionist enough for Democrats.
"The governor got significant parts of the business community to sign on, from Safeway to the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce," one adviser to the governor told me. "But that didn't move the antitax Republican base."
• Nothing big passes Congress these days without bipartisan support. "The lesson from California is just how difficult it is to deal with so many players that have such disparate demands," says Dan Walters, a columnist for the Sacramento Bee. "The governor's original plan had the doctors opposing the fees it imposed on them and the nurses union upset because it wasn't single-payer. Having all the first responders who dress in white opposing your plan isn't politically healthy."
After Democrats and Republicans reach a compromise, the president says it could lay the groundwork for national health coverage.
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer September 23, 2007
WASHINGTON -- -- For years it has been one of the few issues that liberals and conservatives in Congress could agree on -- continuing and expanding a state-federal partnership to provide health insurance for kids, mainly the children of the working poor.
So when senators of both parties reached a compromise this summer and then beat back efforts by House Democrats to triple the program's budget, its many Republican backers thought they had a political victory that President Bush could embrace.
Instead, the issue has become an ideological flash point and Bush is threatening to cast what may become the year's most controversial veto. In the process, he could create new intraparty turmoil for fellow Republicans who have looked to passage of the bill to brighten an otherwise grim political outlook.
The question will come to the floor of Congress this week, days before the old program is set to expire Sept. 30. At that point, 6 million children -- including about 800,000 in California -- could lose coverage.
One snag is cost. Even the final compromise, far less open-handed than the House wanted, calls for more money. And the White House is trying to draw a tighter line on domestic spending.
The bigger stumbling block has turned out to be ideological. After 10 years of sailing along as a feel-good idea that just about everyone supported, the children's medical insurance program has been drawn into the contentious debate about healthcare in general.
Bush has attacked the compromise bill because it would expand coverage to some middle-class families instead of retaining the plan's original focus on those with low incomes. The bill could lay the groundwork for government-run national healthcare, he has said.
In his Saturday radio address, the president said Democrats were at fault: "Instead of working with my administration to enact this funding increase for children's health, Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed."
In effect, the White House says, Democrats see the bill as a way to begin doing for children what Medicare does for the elderly: make healthcare a national entitlement.
Democrats and Republicans supporting the expansion -- including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- answer that their concern is with economic reality. With the average cost of family coverage about $12,000 a year, some parents with middle-class incomes can't afford it if their employers don't help shoulder the cost. And when uninsured children get seriously ill, supporters say, the burden falls on society as a whole.
Known nationally as the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- in California as Healthy Families -- the plan started as an attempt to salvage something positive from the rancorous collapse of the 1990s national healthcare reform debate. States got generous federal matching funds and flexibility to design their own coverage.
At first, the program was aimed at uninsured children whose parents earned too much to qualify for coverage under Medicaid but too little to afford private coverage. The goal was to reach families earning up to twice the federal poverty level, now about $41,000 for a family of four. The vast majority of children covered by the program are still in that category.
However, as healthcare costs soared, states began to grapple with knowing that many families -- especially in urban areas where the cost of living is higher than average -- had trouble paying for private insurance even though they earned more than twice the poverty level.
Fourteen states now have higher eligibility cutoffs. The pending bill would allow states to go to three times the poverty level, about $60,000 for a family of four.
Conservative Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), one of the creators of the original program, said that was well short of providing what the White House said it feared: government-financed healthcare for the middle class.
He joined forces with liberal senators such as Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John D. "Jay" Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) to push the compromise.
"The administration [is] making it clear they do not want it to be morphed into one-size-fits-all government healthcare, but to be honest with you, this bill doesn't do that," Hatch said. "I believe the president has had bad advice on this, but I understand the president's desire to keep spending under control."
Health economist Len Nichols of the nonpartisan New America Foundation said he thought a lot of Republicans were "perplexed by the White House stand on this issue."
Funding for the program has cost about $5 billion a year. Bush wants to increase it by an average of $1 billion a year over the next five years. Independent analysts say that's not enough to sustain the current caseload.
Congress wants to add $35 billion over five years by raising tobacco taxes. That would sustain the current caseload and cover 3 million to 4 million more children. About 9 million are currently uninsured nationwide.
Let's see what the good sister has to say:
Quote:
I was offended by President Bush's remarks indicating that he plans to veto bipartisan legislation that would reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The president accused others of partisan politics around children's healthcare, but stands almost alone in his stubborn opposition to this vital safety-net program.
The administration is trying to confuse Americans by saying that reauthorizing this program would create government-run healthcare. That is simply not true. From 10 years of successful experience with the program, we know that it provides coverage for children who have no other insurance -- the original intent of the program.
When any child is allowed to go without health insurance or medical care, our nation is not meeting its moral obligations nor showing its compassion. Congress has passed responsible, bipartisan legislation that is widely supported. It is not too late for the president to change his mind and provide children with a healthier, brighter future.- Sister Carol Keehan
President, chief executive Catholic Health Assn. of the United States
Washington
It's just sad that in order to fight these ideological battles, there has to be so much collateral damage and suffering as a result. If this isn't a case of the Grinch who stole Christmas, i don't know what is...
This indeed may be good news for Democrats to drive a point about GOP "compassion" but if only it didn't have to come with more hardship and to the most defenseless among us. this is "good news" that isn't so good and completely unnecessary.
Quote:
"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" -Matthew 19:21
"'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied: '"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'" -Matthew 22:36-40
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." -Matthew 6:24
"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" -Matthew 16:26
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'" -Matthew 25:41-45
There's bipartisan consensus in California on the need for reform; now it's time to stitch together a deal.
September 20, 2007
If appearances can be believed, this has been a hopeful week for healthcare reform. On Monday, presidential aspirant and onetime healthcare laughingstock Hillary Rodham Clinton received a warm reception for her proposal for nationwide universal coverage -- a plan that resembles the system Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants for California. The governor projected optimism on healthcare too, dropping by Wednesday to talk with The Times' editorial board about his plan and its prospects for passage in the Legislature's special session.
He touted endorsements the plan has received from the California Hospital Assn. and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce -- two interest groups that initially were skeptical of reform. He reiterated his belief, backed on this page, that an individual mandate -- a requirement that every Californian have health insurance -- could produce significant savings on medical costs for businesses and consumers alike. Asked whether voters will resist funding the new system, he pointed to polls showing that a majority of Californians want change on healthcare. "We're doing something the majority of voters are for," he said. He's right, which makes this an important moment in the debate over this vital issue.
There was, however, a missing element in his pitch: those pesky details. Yes, the special session has been conspicuously underway for several days. But the governor and legislators still must figure out how much policyholders, taxpayers and business should each pitch in for universal coverage, which will cost billions of dollars. The governor is sticking by his calls for businesses to pitch in 4% of payroll; Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, by his bill's steeper 7.5%. The parties haven't yet hammered out how to make health insurance affordable for lower-income Californians either. Or, if subsidies are called for, how the state will pay for them. Schwarzenegger's proposal hasn't even been introduced as a bill yet. As one healthcare expert who's been following the negotiations put it: "Everyone's asking when the special session will end. I'm wondering, when does it begin?"
"What we are saying is that in the end, everybody benefits," the governor said Wednesday. He's right about that too. But everybody benefits only if a bill -- a workable bill -- passes out of the ever-shortening special session. This is a rare opportunity for California to capitalize on bipartisan agreement that healthcare demands fixing; it would be a tragedy to waste it.
As you can see, there is a stark difference between what is going on and what the Wall Street Journal wishes was going on.
I hope I'm wrong but it sounds almost as if there is eagerness to see any progress made on health care in this country to FAIL. That's fucked up IMO.
...It's just sad that in order to fight these ideological battles, there has to be so much collateral damage and suffering as a result. If this isn't a case of the Grinch who stole Christmas, i don't know what is... This indeed may be good news for Democrats to drive a point about GOP "compassion" but if only it didn't have to come with more hardship and to the most defenseless among us. this is "good news" that isn't so good and completely unnecessary. ...
Usually I take a bit of comfort when political issues go this way. Maybe if it was claser to '08 I would here too but this just leaves me more disgusted with our "leader".
RE: G-Man's loaded "socialized medicine flops in CA" headline....there is a stark difference between what is going on and what the Wall Street Journal wishes was going on.
Ummm....all you just did was to post an LA Times editorial that disagrees with the Wall St. Journal editorial. That's fair, of course. However, since both are editorials (and I took pains to note my source was), it's a bit disingenuous of you to treat your editorial as "fact", not opinion.
To be fair G-man, you usually don't label your Wall Street Journal editorials & there are many instances when you state opinion as fact. (or just make up mean things & say them repeatedly)
RE: G-Man's loaded "socialized medicine flops in CA" headline....there is a stark difference between what is going on and what the Wall Street Journal wishes was going on.
Ummm....all you just did was to post an LA Times editorial that disagrees with the Wall St. Journal editorial. That's fair, of course. However, since both are editorials (and I took pains to note my source was), it's a bit disingenuous of you to treat your editorial as "fact", not opinion.
Well you're right but the point I was trying to make is that the Wall Street Journal editorial board tries to paint California's health care reform in the most dismissive and pessimistic color possible. No one here, not the Democrats and not the Schwarzenegger administration and certainly not the L.A. Times would agree on such a dour and dismissive assesment.
Now why would a bunch of Wall Street fatcat$ try to downplay, ridicule, and discourage reform on health care I wonder? No matter the amount of naysaying, reform is going to happen because the situation has deteriorated significantly since Hillary 1st tried it. The old slogans of "socialism socialism" aren't going to work when EVERYONE has a story to tell about the current status quo now.
I expect this issue to come to a boil sometime next year and especially when "Sicko is released on DVD and more people get a chance to see it.
If any of you are going to be really impartial. Then G-man should start posting about all the who hasn't been treated at american hospitals because they couldn't pay, and those who've died thereof.
And whomod/MEM would start talking about the wonders of private sector hospitals.
But none of you do, which basically means, you're not having a debate. You're just playing "show and tell"
...After 10 years of sailing along as a feel-good idea that just about everyone supported, the children's medical insurance program has been drawn into the contentious debate about healthcare in general.
Bush has attacked the compromise bill because it would expand coverage to some middle-class families instead of retaining the plan's original focus on those with low incomes. The bill could lay the groundwork for government-run national healthcare, he has said....
Putting aside whether or not the bill could lead to socialized medicine (since I realize some of you think that would be a good thing), Bush has a good point about the cost and who the plan should or should not cover.
No one is saying that the poor shouldn't have access to basic health care subsidized by the government. That's part of the social contract and the social services we have long provided the destitute of our nation.
This program, however, goes beyond giving health care to the poor. As a columnist in today's New York Post notes:
taxpayers fund health coverage for children in families of four earning as much as $72,000 per year.... Democrats in Congress want to open the program to families of four earning $83,000 per year or more
Furthermore, sadly, Bush isn't even per se against expanding the program. Instead, "President Bush is OK with expanding SCHIP to cover well-off families - but only if the states enroll 95 percent of those lower-income children first."
That's not a safety net for the poor. That's BOTH parties buying votes from the middle class.
)?
